Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we consider several binomial mixture models for fitting over-dispersed binary data. The models range from the binomial itself, to the beta-binomial (BB), the Kumaraswamy distributions I and II (KPI \& KPII) as well as the McDonald generalized beta-binomial mixed model (McGBB). The models are applied to five data sets that have received attention in various literature. Because of convergence issues, several optimization methods ranging from the Newton-Raphson to the quasi-Newton optimization algorithms were employed with SAS PROC NLMIXED using the Adaptive Gaussian Quadrature as the integral approximation method within PROC NLMIXED. Our results differ from those presented in Li, Huang and Zhao (2011) for the example data sets in that paper but agree with those presented in Manoj, Wijekoon and Yapa (2013). We also applied these models to the case where we have a $k$ vector of covariates $(x_1, x_2, \ldots, x_k)^{'}$. Our results here suggest that the McGBB performs better than the other models in the GLM framework. All computations in this paper employed PROC NLMIXED in SAS. We present in the appendix a sample of the SAS program employed for implementing the McGBB model for one of the examples.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.029 | 0.067 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".